On Thursday, 8 December, the Global Warming Policy Foundation will release its new report The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, written by Christopher Booker and with a foreword by Sir Antony Jay.

The new report reveals that the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately on one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects. The BBC has above all been guilty of abusing the trust of its audience, and of all those compelled to pay for it. On one of the most important and far-reaching issues of our time, its coverage has been so tendentious that it has given its viewers a picture not just misleading but at times even fraudulent.

Wonderful, what an appropriate phrase for those with memories of 'Yes Minister.'In another foreword, that to 'Yes Minister vol. two', he and Jonathan Lynn noted a point that might have some resonance with this new document -

'These diaries accurately reflect the mind of one of our outstanding national leaders. If the reflection seems clouded, it may not be the fault of the mirror.'

The BBC loves to bring us news of reports that have just been published. I can't wait for this new report to appear on the BBC news on Thursday. I'm sure John Humphpreys will cover it on the Today programme.

This will be an interesting read especially given the contents of the recently released emails. I look forward to reading it.

I cannot imagine the BBC pursuing a libel case since they would have to provide discivery and that is likely to be extremely damning. Further, fair comment and public interest would appear to be a good defence, not forgetting that the truth is also a valid defence.

Any guesses whether this report will make the evenning news on Thursday? I rather doubt that we will be seeing the BBC giving air time to this, If they were not all in it together, the other networks could have a field day with the BBC, just like the Guardian going after the News of the World.

I’ve lodged a complaint with the BBC Trust and eagerly await a big dollop BBC sophistry in response. Well, that’s what I’ve received in the past and I see no reason why Climategate 2 will change any minds: none so deaf as those who don’t want to hear. Maybe Messrs Booker and Jay will have more luck.

5 Dec: UK Register: Natalie Apostolou: Australia Network stays in Aunty's lapMurdoch empire out in cold as tender scrappedThe Australian government has scrapped all future intentions for a competitive tender for the Australia Network broadcasting contract and has instead handed national public broadcaster the ABC with a permanent contract...http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/05/abc_keeps_contract_skynews_furious/

if Murdoch wanted revenge, he could expose Neil Wallis's damage control for the CRU Posse and much, much more. however, as the Murdoch media is as much a participant in the whole CAGW scam, don't hold your breath.

The BBC cannot sue for the reason of disclosure mentioned above. Another reason is that truth is a legal defence against accusations of libel.

However, the real reason they won't sue is because they have a £3.2 billion propaganda budget to combat any accusations. They also have a tame newspaper, friends in all the political parties, NGOs, pressure groups and across the celebrity world.

They are simply untouchable. They consider themselves to be anti-establishment, when they are, in fact, the establishment.

They are as much the anti-establishment as they are "tax-payers"Bono Ono , their bow ornament, a case in point in fact.

Just do not mention the name of the bloke anymore that is sampling wine and making long walks in nature at Ford's and Nike's expense, 70k for a whole year, while his little bed is spread out and kept warm at Al BeeBCeejah. I get urticaria when I read his name.

They never mature do they? Never take responsibility want to have the pay of responsibility but the joy of scoulding around and kicking riots. You cannot have it all. Obama looks at the occupy whatever and you hear him think he wants to be the good guy there you know..lament the evil of the power and the us empire. then go home at night to moochelle and have diner served in a banquet. Grow up.

My single biggest gripe with the BBC is its atrocious peddling of the Global Warming scare story. There is plenty of evidence that the contrary viewpoint - or heresy if you prefer - is being actively suppressed. A clique of lefty headbangers with names such as Harrabin and Black and Watts are peddling this preposterous apocalypse myth. I do concede that the sainted Attenborough, and even the great geneticist Steve Jones, are true believers and are entitled to express their views. But Prof Jones's recent proposals for the suppression of dissent is precisely contrary to the BBC's statute. He's off my Christmas card list, bad lad.

Voltaire didn't actually write, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", but he should've. I approve of David Attenborough talking through his hat on this subject; the quid pro quo is that those of us trying to oppose the appalling groupthink of the wicked Global Warming Industry should be given fair airtime.

Please see: "The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal", written by Christopher Booker and with a foreword by Sir Antony Jay.

While I appreciate this report, it seems that anybody who has objectively read one of Richard Black's spun and selective sermons or watched their 'Daily AGW Doomsday' report with David Shukman in the pre-Climategate era would recognize their blatant propaganda for what it was.

Almost all major American and Canadian networks are almost as bad, with the Canadian CBC - home of David Suzuki - a very close rival of the BBC in this department.

If it were not for the net, and sites like this one, they would have got away with it.

Interesting to compare a journalist interacting with the CRU and the BBC activists interacting with the CRU:

WOW, ZT! Some fascinating stuff you've uncovered. Your findings also shed considerable light on how Team IPCC respond to questions from journalists whom they don't really want to answer. 5152.txt is quite the eye opener (if not jaw-dropping in its utter arrogance - Solomon is proving herself to be quite a piece of work!):

I am not trying to put words in your mouth but rather make a suggestion about the type of thing to say - in fact it will be better if you rewrite this so it is your own words. Such a broad letter could have great utility: we could all use it whenever appropriate, rather than just for New Scientist.[...]Not only was none of what we gave them quoted, but our responses were misrepresented as 'lack of transparency' and such nonsense. [...]

A little more "classy" than Jones's "Keith will say ..." but no less controlling.

Speaking of Team IPCC, and those who put words in the mouths of others ... I've found a few "context" pieces that shed a little more light on Hulme and his pre-CG1 "forgotten" activiism, circa 1997:

ok...Christopher Booker ia about the only original Private Eye journo who still contributes there...why is Private Eye not homing in on the evident corruption in Huhne and Cameron? Except, we all knew they only diss their p[erceived enemies...

Perhaps they included this, fronted by David Attenborough :http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml

The BBC decided to do its own climate 'science' in 2006 with the Climate Change Experiment whereby 250,000 viewers downloaded a computer model that used spare processing power to predict future climate. Inevitably it concluded with statements such as this:

"UK temperatureThe UK should expect a 4°C rise in temperature by 2080 according to the most likely results of the experiment.Heatwaves are on the rise and, by 2080, summer temperatures of 40°C will be common. Winters will also be warmer."and"Depending on how quickly we act and how much action we take, the effects of climate change can seriously be reduced."

The following shows the top 100 equity investments of the BBC pension fund:http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtmlA very rough glance shows around £100 million invested in oil companies.

The BBC pension scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which "brings investors together to use their significant collective influence to engage in dialogues with policymakers, investors and companies to accelerate the shift to a low carbon economy."http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/RevisedIIGCCInvestorStatementonClimateChange.pdf

"The IIGCC currently has over 75 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, representing around €7.5trillion"http://www.iigcc.org/about-us

Probably because Ian Hislop believes in CAGW. I remember seeing him on "Have I Got News for You" when they showed a newspaper clip calling into question one of the CAGW claims (I can't remember which one) and he started spouting the usual stuff about funding, flat earthers etc.

that comedians have not mined the comedic potential of CAGW is a crying shame....Josh excepted.

here's Hislop and his wife, in such good company...

CoolEarth.org: Individual SupportersSir Nicholas Stern...Dr John Hemming, former director of the Royal Geographical Society: "The world's rainforests are crucially important, as a carbon sink, as a source of rainfall and as home to millions of species...Victoria Hislop, writer: "This is a simple initiative but it could make a significant difference to the future of our planet. That's why I joined Cool Earth." Ian Hislop, Editor, Private Eye: "Cool Earth - a better idea than more hot air."...Jim Butcher, Executive Director, Morgan Stanley: "Only by thinking creatively and acting responsibly can we meet the huge challenge that climate change poses...http://www.coolearth.org/296/coolearth-31/supporters-151/individual-supporters-330.html

5 Dec: CBBC: David Attenborough raises concerns over climate changeThe legendary filmmaker Sir David Attenborough has spoken out about climate change.The Frozen Planet star believes that if the world's temperature continues to rise, there could be dangerous consequences for the human race. His comments come as world leaders meet in South Africa to try to hammer out a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions...As his latest documentary, Frozen Planet, comes to an end, Sir David's seen for himself the effects of climate change in the North and South poles. He's spent much of his career travelling the world and feels it's extremely important that something's done to protect the planet before it's too late.http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/16036201

when Climategate broke in 2009, one of my first posts on sceptic websites warned media companies not to keep inserting CAGW into nature documentaries and the like because they would have no value in the future, once the public caught on to the scam. i now only watch pre-CAGW Attenborough docus online.

6 Dec: UK Daily Mail: Severe water shortages, hotter days and more floods: What the weather has in store for us in 2100 (but at least we might get bumper crops)Millions of lives could be ‘changed forever’, MP warnsBy Tamara CohenDespite recently dropping seasonal forecasts because they kept getting them wrong, the Met Office yesterday laid out its predictions for Britain’s weather in the year 2100…***In the most extreme scenario, 160,000 more people could be at risk of coastal flooding particularly in popular tourist areas of the south coast, the report says. The ‘Climate observations, projections and impacts’ report, published yesterday at the UN climate conference in Durban is the first time Britain’s weather has been mapped out for this long.‘It comes just a year after the Met Office ditched its 90-day forecasts for the public after a predicted barbeque summer turned out to be a washout…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070437/Severe-water-shortages-hotter-days-floods-What-weather-store-2100-bumper-crops.html

hro001 - yes, Fred Pearce was apparently in the habit of doing journalism: checking the details, comparing perspectives, asking for facts, and evidence - and reporting what he found. The BBC activists were just pushing an agenda. Meanwhile the climatologists were cutting-and-pasting, avoiding falsification, and evading FOI requests, as fast as they could.

@Diogenes: Private Eye has form when it comes peddling dodgy scare stories, viz: the MMR debacle as a prime example. I daresay catastrophic global warming peddled by those lovely people at Greenpeace who just want to save the planet, unlike those wicked polluters in Exxon, is right up their street. They are a bunch of immature student lefties after all.

They'll just change tack.The whole scam is built upon easily-changeable scenarios.Global warming = climate change = climate disruption = ?With their comprehensive network of believers (US president/UK premier/united nations/practically all the press and media/) the scam has obviously been a long time in the planning.WWF/GREENPEACE/ETC.....look at the degree of interlinking between them all....even people from the largest financial institutions in the world (banking/accounting/legal)...Many of the worlds richest people support The Cause, openly of covertly.The "fall" of communism just marked a change of approach in same....the wholesale infiltration of many groups and banners.....Now we have the EU planning to take-over smaller countries, bypassing democracy, by installing managers instead of politicians, and then installing a system that means that France and Germany will, effectively, be ruling the roost.

Presumably the report is already out to the press under embargo till Thursday, to let journo's chew on it. Who will cover it? On present form the Mail is almost bound to, and Booker is a regular at the Telegraph. Then there's the rebuttal brigade....

Your Grace, Is this GWPF report the reason why you and Tony Newbery held off on criticism of the Jones Report?I was surprised that you two didn’t react more strongly to the disgraceful way you were treated in a report that was wholeheartedly welcomed by the BBC Trust. In a long treatment of climate sceptics and deniers, you two were singled out, along with Monckton, and treated as irrelevant clowns. I thought at the time that a mass write-in by your readers might have been an effective tactic. The tactic of countering an official report with an unofficial report undoubtedly looks more serious and less messy, but I don’t see how it can win in what is essentially a popular uprising against the tyranny of the official consensus view of the world.

The timing of this is interesting to me. I have spent a whole year complaining to the BBC about the infamous "Horizon" programme in January, in which Sir Paul Nurse stated that humanity produces 7 times more CO2 than natural sources. Dozens of letter have been sent back and forth and the BBC has rejected my complaint at every stage. The very final stage is my appeal to the BBC trust, to which I received the following reply:

"Dear Mr LongstaffThank you for your email of 9 November.The Committee considered your appeal at their meeting of 2 November, and the finding will be ratified at their meeting of 1 December. Following this, we will write in December to provide you with the finding.Yours sincerelyLucy TristramBBC Trust Unit"

I wrote again this morning and requested the result. I am not holding my breath.

Here's an interesting observation on the BBC (and other media-related matters) from none other than "Poor Phil" (circa Nov. 2008). He's describing an outline for a "Global Environmental Change Project" at UEA's School of Environmental Science - a project that he's evidently given in the past:

[...] To almost all in government circles (including the US from Jan 20, 2009), the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however, still a vociferous and small majority of climate change skeptics (also called deniers, but these almost entirely exclude any climate-trained climate scientists) who engage the public/govt/media through web sites. Mainstream climate science does not engage with them, and most of these skeptics/deniers do not write regular scientific papers in peer-review journals. The project would address the division through the reporting (in mainstream media and bloggs) of a number (to be decided but 3-5) recent scientific papers. Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists?; should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations (through the peer-review literature)? and should the science be conducted across blogg sites? [emphasis added -hro]

As a modest private donor to the GWPF since its inception, I am delighted that it is to publish "The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal".

Since the BBC refused to answer my request to know who were the panel of experts who had attended the 2006 seminar, I have not taken any BBC reports on climate change seriously. Transparency in science reporting is all.

The problem for the BBC is that, by allowing themselves to promote the CAGW religion, they are tainting their credibility in all factual reporting. This must present a long-term threat to this truly great institution's survival.

hro001 at 10:54 AM:Wow! Phil Jones has really gotten an anti-skeptic program together there! (Anyone else noticed how Professor Jones even has his spelling checked by Michael?)I particularly liked the idea of “climate-trained climate scientists”. (As in “potty-trained”, one imagines). Judith Curry et al must count as “un-climate-trained” climate scientists, I suppose.

Hi Keith,Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we're hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.

1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he'll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he's understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he's discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he's come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he's come to you to explain it to him.

2) Your essential job is to "prove" to Paul that what we're experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we've seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is - the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.

3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren't quite as dramatic as he thought. They're there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.

4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the "natural" fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it's down to changes in the sun's output, volcanoes etc)

5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within reason!) and elaborate the point that what's happening now is unprecedented compared to these historic records. In my ideal world, you walk right up to the projector image and point things out on the screen, with parts of the projected image falling on your heads and shoulders. Stills of tree rings or anything else climate related eg ice cores, corals, would also work as powerpoints, because you could talk about them as egs of proxies.

Hopefully this makes it clear what I'm trying to achieve.

Look forward to tomorrow.

All best

Jonathan

Jonathan RenoufSeries ProducerScience Department

On Climate Change the BBC truly believes that in order to convince people all they need do is to stage a conversion in order to persuade.

At the end of the day it's what the planet does that counts and not what the hockey sticks, the BBC and other climate liars say and do. And the planet is refusing to obey Mann's hockey stick and other predictions supported by the BBC crooks and their cronies. We are suffereing financially due to this lie, and until this lie is put to rest we will continue to suffer. But it's better than getting a direct hit from a nuclear bomb. That's the only consolation I can find.

I don't see any evidence of any science in the Science Department for which Jonathan Renouf is a (the) Series Producer. From the tone of that email, surely it is the Propaganda Department for which Jonathan Renouf is a Series Producer.

I think you're reading the Onion article wrongly. Basically it's poking fun at the changeable dates for climate catastrophe, and all the prnouncements that things will happen by such-and-such a date, all obviously wrong.

It may be very gentle on AGW in general, but it's another drip in the stream of drips. This article wouldn't have been (allowed to be) posted 2 years ago.

Q: "Does seeing that research yourself leave you frustrated with climate change scepticism?"

Rose: "Yes it does. The scientific community are in consensus about climate change. The main driver is humans. There are nearly 7billion of us and we have to accept that if we’re going to cut down forests and have the industry we need we’re going to affect the planet. Many people look at nature as something there for our use – for medicines, for food, as a bottomless pit for our waste – and it isn’t. The planet isn’t limitless."

Not only an alarmist but a Malthusian to boot as well.

Do we really need to see and hear the likes of Paul Rose on the BBC someone who believes that humanity is a blight on this planet?